The image above has been widely shared on social media. It shows that since mid March, the sea surface temperature between latitudes 60S and 60N is the highest since the data series started to be collected. Bill McKibben, never shy to exaggerate, calls it
"People sharing the first graph are basically saying that it is fine to make sweeping conclusions about climate change because a single metric has been the highest so far for a grand total of 3 months."
I don't think this is a fair read at all. Maybe if you provided some of the commentary people are saying, there'd be more evidence for this claim. As it stands, you're reading quite deeply into people's minds without citing much evidence. I'd share this picture. It's real. It's relevant. It's informative. Not only is the metric higher, it's much higher, and it's been growing higher over time. And the metric is, well, the average temperature on Earth. A pretty clear, simple, valuable metric if ever there was one. Everyone knows temperature.
"Recent spikes in ocean heat content and average global air temperature have left climate scientists across the world scrambling to find the cause."
"What makes these most recent temperature spikes so alarming is that they've occurred before a forecast El Niño event in the Pacific, rather than during one."
"It is now clear that Earth's climate system is way out of kilter and we should be very concerned."
Notice the tone and the expressions used.
"Left climate scientists scrambling to find the cause" gives the impression that what is happening today is completely unexpected (otherwise why scramble?). Coupled with the "alarming" and "way out of kilter", it portrays global warming as accelerating or getting worse than expected.
That is nonsense. Climate change is like demographics or a super tanker -- things change very slowly. The IPCC's 3 working groups provide comprehensive evidence. The WG1's report alone is 2,400-page long. Why focus on short-term (months) temperature changes and not on long-term (decades) observed and predicted changes?
Thank you again for your comments and question. You've motivated me to dig deeper.
"Highest temps ever recorded in North Atlantic, Antarctic ice anomalies at all time high, NYC blanketed in wildfire smoke… Is the wake up call to act before it’s too late still not loud enough?"
"It hit 49C (120F) in Iran. Parts of India are 46C (115F). The Arabian Sea is practically boiling. This is all happening at just 1.3 degrees of warming. How many more extreme weather events before we finally do we need to do to address this crisis? No more delays. #ActOnClimate"
Mark, thank you for taking the time writing a thoughtful comment. I really appreciate.
You are correct that I claim one thing (many people make sweeping conclusions) yet provide a single example (Bill McKibben's). Given this limitation, your comment that "you're reading quite deeply into people's minds without citing much evidence" is spot on. I will try to post one or a few references (in a separate comment to keep this answer short).
To the best of my knowledge there is no chart of Earth showing cooling, and I'd be surprised if there were any, given Earth's surface temperature has increased by 1.3C since pre-industrial times and is on pace to rise another say 1.5C (i.e. 2.8C total) by 2100.
In other words, the data in the chart is real. So what do I mean by cherry picking? I mean that, unless someone also shows the same data series when it doesn't look so extreme, that person is only using the most extreme data, and my suspicion is that they're doing so because it supports the climate policy they agree with.
For instance, within a few years we are likely to have a La Nina year, which is cooler on average than an El Nino year (that's the second graph, from NOAA). What I claim (again without any evidence, but give me some rope here) is that the vast majority of people will not reshare the same kind of chart during the La Nina year, because it won't look as bad.
That's what I call cherry picking. The data is real. But only the most extreme data is widely circulated by some people in order to make a point.
Ugh, looks like I can't edit. Obviously I misread the metric, my mistake. Yeah it may be a bit specific with sea temperatures in a given latitude, but I'd just clarify that when I shared. Do we have similar charts of other large parts of Earth (or Earth as a whole) showing cooling?
"People sharing the first graph are basically saying that it is fine to make sweeping conclusions about climate change because a single metric has been the highest so far for a grand total of 3 months."
I don't think this is a fair read at all. Maybe if you provided some of the commentary people are saying, there'd be more evidence for this claim. As it stands, you're reading quite deeply into people's minds without citing much evidence. I'd share this picture. It's real. It's relevant. It's informative. Not only is the metric higher, it's much higher, and it's been growing higher over time. And the metric is, well, the average temperature on Earth. A pretty clear, simple, valuable metric if ever there was one. Everyone knows temperature.
Here's an example from today. This is the 5th news result for the search query "2023 sea surface temperature anomaly":
https://phys.org/news/2023-06-global-average-sea-air-temperatures.html
I want to highlight a few sentences:
"Recent spikes in ocean heat content and average global air temperature have left climate scientists across the world scrambling to find the cause."
"What makes these most recent temperature spikes so alarming is that they've occurred before a forecast El Niño event in the Pacific, rather than during one."
"It is now clear that Earth's climate system is way out of kilter and we should be very concerned."
Notice the tone and the expressions used.
"Left climate scientists scrambling to find the cause" gives the impression that what is happening today is completely unexpected (otherwise why scramble?). Coupled with the "alarming" and "way out of kilter", it portrays global warming as accelerating or getting worse than expected.
That is nonsense. Climate change is like demographics or a super tanker -- things change very slowly. The IPCC's 3 working groups provide comprehensive evidence. The WG1's report alone is 2,400-page long. Why focus on short-term (months) temperature changes and not on long-term (decades) observed and predicted changes?
Thank you again for your comments and question. You've motivated me to dig deeper.
Yes, this is a good example. Thank you for sharing :)
For my own reference, two more examples from the same tweet
https://twitter.com/lizbonnin/status/1669093450526990339
"Highest temps ever recorded in North Atlantic, Antarctic ice anomalies at all time high, NYC blanketed in wildfire smoke… Is the wake up call to act before it’s too late still not loud enough?"
"It hit 49C (120F) in Iran. Parts of India are 46C (115F). The Arabian Sea is practically boiling. This is all happening at just 1.3 degrees of warming. How many more extreme weather events before we finally do we need to do to address this crisis? No more delays. #ActOnClimate"
Mark, thank you for taking the time writing a thoughtful comment. I really appreciate.
You are correct that I claim one thing (many people make sweeping conclusions) yet provide a single example (Bill McKibben's). Given this limitation, your comment that "you're reading quite deeply into people's minds without citing much evidence" is spot on. I will try to post one or a few references (in a separate comment to keep this answer short).
To the best of my knowledge there is no chart of Earth showing cooling, and I'd be surprised if there were any, given Earth's surface temperature has increased by 1.3C since pre-industrial times and is on pace to rise another say 1.5C (i.e. 2.8C total) by 2100.
In other words, the data in the chart is real. So what do I mean by cherry picking? I mean that, unless someone also shows the same data series when it doesn't look so extreme, that person is only using the most extreme data, and my suspicion is that they're doing so because it supports the climate policy they agree with.
For instance, within a few years we are likely to have a La Nina year, which is cooler on average than an El Nino year (that's the second graph, from NOAA). What I claim (again without any evidence, but give me some rope here) is that the vast majority of people will not reshare the same kind of chart during the La Nina year, because it won't look as bad.
That's what I call cherry picking. The data is real. But only the most extreme data is widely circulated by some people in order to make a point.
And to your point, I would *not* call this picture (in which decade averages are plotted) cherry picking: https://twitter.com/66Iot/status/1671602121915916300/photo/1
Ugh, looks like I can't edit. Obviously I misread the metric, my mistake. Yeah it may be a bit specific with sea temperatures in a given latitude, but I'd just clarify that when I shared. Do we have similar charts of other large parts of Earth (or Earth as a whole) showing cooling?